France accuses UK military of war crimes.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is frankly rather juvenile to try to pretend that Brits are somehow braver or more noble in battle than the French.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baron Rouge:
My professional life is paid for by teaching English to children. I greatly prefer the "ability to communicate" over "correctness", but I'm calling you over this. I don't know what your native language is, but if you equate the Boer "concentration camps" to Nazi and Soviet extermination camps, then you really need to get a life. Don't bother trying to communicate in English until you can tell the difference between turd and merde.
But what to expect of a nation which still now worship KITCHENER, the butcher who invented the concentration camps and killed thousend of women and children to win a war he would have lost otherwise, had he not acted as a criminal of war.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
Perhaps the war crime that the French are complaining about is the killing of the French prisoners at the end of the battle? Much money could be made by the rank and file by capturing a noble who would then pay a ransome for his safe return home - a man of high rank could set a squire up for life, and as for a King's Ransome..... Many French nobles had surrendered during the fighting (nothing new there then), but when there was the threat of a French attack late in the day - an assault on the baggage train - King Henry ordered all the prisoners killed to avoid their release. Mind you, this probably upset his own troops more than the victims because it cost them much in lost allowances!
How familiar it all sounds......
PS. I don't hear the French complaining about the murder of the Hugenouts during C16.
How familiar it all sounds......
PS. I don't hear the French complaining about the murder of the Hugenouts during C16.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pathfinder country
Age: 49
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try reading Alitair Hornes book, 'How to lose a battle' about the German invasion of France. Very interesting and shows that the French effectively defeated themselves in the years preceeding the invasion with poor planning, a number of totally useless Governments and internal dissent. Yes they fought well at Verdun, but that is where the seeds of loss were first sown for 1940.
Considering the French 'Counter-attacks' that had already happened, the incompetence of their high-command and the defeatist attitude already in place at all levels of the army then Gort was probably right to pull back to the channel and scarper.
Considering the French 'Counter-attacks' that had already happened, the incompetence of their high-command and the defeatist attitude already in place at all levels of the army then Gort was probably right to pull back to the channel and scarper.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
defeatist attitude already in place at all levels of the army then Gort was probably right to pull back to the channel and scarper
I don't see how the French can accuse anyone of cowardice. After all, don't they blow up peaceful foreign vessels tied up in foreign harbours without warning?
How brave is that?
Many, many brave individuals. Shame their governments have not been up to the standard of their citizens.
Doc C
How brave is that?
Many, many brave individuals. Shame their governments have not been up to the standard of their citizens.
Doc C
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
Interesting Parallels
General Gamlin, autocratic Commander of the Allied Armies in 1940, had his HQ in the Chateau de Vincennes near Paris. He had no radio in his HQ - and was 15 miles away from the rest of his miliatary staff (being frightened of DF and subsequent Air Attack). It was said that his orders, which were dispatched by motorcycle twice a day) took 2 days to reach the front - this was one of the main contributing factors for ineffectual French coordination during May 1940.
By coincidence, Chateau de Vincennes is where Henry V, victor of Agincourt, died in August 1422.
By coincidence, Chateau de Vincennes is where Henry V, victor of Agincourt, died in August 1422.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the RAF deliberately targeting civilians with incendiary carpet bombing raids on German cities during WW2? Even if you argue that it was strategically necessary, it doesn't alter the fact that it was a war-crime.
J'ai lu l'amende de Français juste, merci, Monsieur Cirrus. J'ai un problème écrire le français, et bien que je puisse parler assez français pour me faire compris, mon accent est terrible, et le bruit en résultant est moins qu'élégant. Vous pourriez dire que Jacko parle français comme une vache espagnole.
As a historian by training, I do have a problem with revisionist historians - especially those inspired by empty nationalistic posturing, and the selective vision of Francophiles amuses me.
The French have not been much of a martial race since the defeat of Napoleon, and many of the jokes have some grounding in truth, though the reason that most of us repeat them is precisely to get up the noses of the French, and of the Francophile Brits. Why would we want to do such a thing? Well perhaps it's because the snail munchers display altogether too much envy and dislike of the 'Perfidious English' and what goes around......
It's amusing, though inaccurate, to make accusations of cowardice. That, of course, is unjust, as the French military problem has never been one of lack of courage, but rather one of poor procurement and a lack of competence and leadership.
As to the performance of the French Army in the Great War, you only have to compare losses, and to look at the mutinies of 1917.
In WWII, if you're asking questions, then how about the following:
1) With a massive superiority (90 odd divisions to 40 odd) why did the French not attack Germany properly in the Saar? Keitel thought that they'd have won a resounding victory.....
2) Would sacrificing more British troops at Dunkirk in order to evacuate more of the French forces have been a good plan, when so many of those that we did rescue ended up going home to fight for Vichy? Of course some French forces fought exceptionally well, but the effectiveness of the overall French effort was soon eroded by defeatism and panic.
3) How could the UK be accused of 'abandoning' the French when British and Canadian forces remained engaged elsewhere in France, when Britain attempted to form a second BEF, and did not finally complete its pull out (from Cherbourg, St Malo, Brest and elsewhere) until 25 June? Though some 300,00 withdrew from Dunkirk, more than 200,000 withdrew in this later evacuation.
4) You can't judge the French in WWII without acknowledging the alacrity with which the Vichy regime rounded up Jews and other undesirables, making themselves entirely complicit with Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity.
As a historian by training, I do have a problem with revisionist historians - especially those inspired by empty nationalistic posturing, and the selective vision of Francophiles amuses me.
The French have not been much of a martial race since the defeat of Napoleon, and many of the jokes have some grounding in truth, though the reason that most of us repeat them is precisely to get up the noses of the French, and of the Francophile Brits. Why would we want to do such a thing? Well perhaps it's because the snail munchers display altogether too much envy and dislike of the 'Perfidious English' and what goes around......
It's amusing, though inaccurate, to make accusations of cowardice. That, of course, is unjust, as the French military problem has never been one of lack of courage, but rather one of poor procurement and a lack of competence and leadership.
As to the performance of the French Army in the Great War, you only have to compare losses, and to look at the mutinies of 1917.
In WWII, if you're asking questions, then how about the following:
1) With a massive superiority (90 odd divisions to 40 odd) why did the French not attack Germany properly in the Saar? Keitel thought that they'd have won a resounding victory.....
2) Would sacrificing more British troops at Dunkirk in order to evacuate more of the French forces have been a good plan, when so many of those that we did rescue ended up going home to fight for Vichy? Of course some French forces fought exceptionally well, but the effectiveness of the overall French effort was soon eroded by defeatism and panic.
3) How could the UK be accused of 'abandoning' the French when British and Canadian forces remained engaged elsewhere in France, when Britain attempted to form a second BEF, and did not finally complete its pull out (from Cherbourg, St Malo, Brest and elsewhere) until 25 June? Though some 300,00 withdrew from Dunkirk, more than 200,000 withdrew in this later evacuation.
4) You can't judge the French in WWII without acknowledging the alacrity with which the Vichy regime rounded up Jews and other undesirables, making themselves entirely complicit with Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4) You can't judge the French in WWII without acknowledging the alacrity with which the Vichy regime rounded up Jews and other undesirables, making themselves entirely complicit with Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Nobody's pretending the French have conducted themselves perfectly, but I find it irritating to read insensitive jokes about French courage. How would people here react to a joke or snide remark about the redcaps being overun in Iraq?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
Cirrus,
You are applying modern thinking to problems of history - you are making the same point about "carpet bombing" that the French are making about Agincourt.
The maxim in 1939-1940 was that the bomber would always get through and many thousands of civilians would be killed by high explosives and especially poison gas. The German use of bombers during the Spanish Civil War (I can't spell Guernica) led to the belief that total destruction would follow once aircraft started bombing. The French were especially paranoid about German bombing - they were more scared of the prospect of bombing rather than the act itself. (Hence no radio at Gamlon's HQ as I stated above).
When the Germans bombed Rotterdam in 1940, about 900 civilians were killed. The hysterical western media reported 30,000 dead - Holland capitulated soon after. The French army actually blockaded some Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF - 1 Gp deployed supporting the BEF) airfields rather than have RAF bombers drop munitions should retaliation take place. Bomber Command was retricted to dropping leaflets during the phoney war - this backing up the strategy of inaction should the Germans turn the Luftwaffe on the civil population.
Once the Germans did start air attacks, they used their heavy (sic) bombers to create terror and refugees in order to destroy morale. They tried the same during the Blitz, and the RAF, completely in tone with the belief of the period, sowed the whirlwind - this strategy used because of the inaccuracy of night bombing.
Yes, the killing of many civilians was not "cricket" however it was the policy of the day and a method of creating a second front to appease the Russians. It would not be tollerated today, but to put today's politically correct thinking into the past does not fit either the circumstances or the desperate race for survival during those dark days.
You are applying modern thinking to problems of history - you are making the same point about "carpet bombing" that the French are making about Agincourt.
The maxim in 1939-1940 was that the bomber would always get through and many thousands of civilians would be killed by high explosives and especially poison gas. The German use of bombers during the Spanish Civil War (I can't spell Guernica) led to the belief that total destruction would follow once aircraft started bombing. The French were especially paranoid about German bombing - they were more scared of the prospect of bombing rather than the act itself. (Hence no radio at Gamlon's HQ as I stated above).
When the Germans bombed Rotterdam in 1940, about 900 civilians were killed. The hysterical western media reported 30,000 dead - Holland capitulated soon after. The French army actually blockaded some Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF - 1 Gp deployed supporting the BEF) airfields rather than have RAF bombers drop munitions should retaliation take place. Bomber Command was retricted to dropping leaflets during the phoney war - this backing up the strategy of inaction should the Germans turn the Luftwaffe on the civil population.
Once the Germans did start air attacks, they used their heavy (sic) bombers to create terror and refugees in order to destroy morale. They tried the same during the Blitz, and the RAF, completely in tone with the belief of the period, sowed the whirlwind - this strategy used because of the inaccuracy of night bombing.
Yes, the killing of many civilians was not "cricket" however it was the policy of the day and a method of creating a second front to appease the Russians. It would not be tollerated today, but to put today's politically correct thinking into the past does not fit either the circumstances or the desperate race for survival during those dark days.
Gentleman Aviator
But even the Romans exaggerated their victories over the French....
....... when Julius Caesar returned from the Gallic Wars (and like modern politicians wrote about it) many of his erstwhile comrades in arms thought he had overblown the extent of their victories....
... in such and such a battle, he claimed 10 000 Gaulish casualties, in another 5 000 when a trusted centurion thought the real numbers were only about half this.....
.... finally emboldened by his indignation, said centurion approached JC and mentioned it.
Cent: "Excuse me sir, but when you said 10 000, it was more like 5 000, and when you said 5 000 I only remember about half that number....."
JC:"I understand your concerns, but it's quite Ok ............
..........
......... 'cos in Europe away Gauls count double!!"
I'll get me coat....
....... when Julius Caesar returned from the Gallic Wars (and like modern politicians wrote about it) many of his erstwhile comrades in arms thought he had overblown the extent of their victories....
... in such and such a battle, he claimed 10 000 Gaulish casualties, in another 5 000 when a trusted centurion thought the real numbers were only about half this.....
.... finally emboldened by his indignation, said centurion approached JC and mentioned it.
Cent: "Excuse me sir, but when you said 10 000, it was more like 5 000, and when you said 5 000 I only remember about half that number....."
JC:"I understand your concerns, but it's quite Ok ............
..........
......... 'cos in Europe away Gauls count double!!"
I'll get me coat....
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale.
I agree with you entirely. As my late father (BEF and then four years as a desert rat) once said to me. There are people who like to question what happened between 1939 and 45 and try to bend history in an effort to make it justify their modern viewpoint. THEY WEREN'T THERE, I WAS.
So apologies to Cirrus if I go with my dad's opinion and not his.
That reminds me. One of my father's favourite recollections concerned some Vichy French battlewagons lying in Oran harbour. When invited by the allies to come out of their hideyhole and help us defeat the axis lot, they showed their true colours and refused.
So the Royal Navy sank em!
I agree with you entirely. As my late father (BEF and then four years as a desert rat) once said to me. There are people who like to question what happened between 1939 and 45 and try to bend history in an effort to make it justify their modern viewpoint. THEY WEREN'T THERE, I WAS.
So apologies to Cirrus if I go with my dad's opinion and not his.
That reminds me. One of my father's favourite recollections concerned some Vichy French battlewagons lying in Oran harbour. When invited by the allies to come out of their hideyhole and help us defeat the axis lot, they showed their true colours and refused.
So the Royal Navy sank em!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In June 1944, as the Liberation of Europe was about to commence, the Royal Air Force included in its Order of Battle a total of 57 Squadrons "formed from men who had, by one means or another, escaped from occupied countries and made their way to British Territory - in other words, men cast in the heroic mould." The quote is from "The Right of the Line" by John Terraine.
Those 57 Squadrons came from the following Countries:
Yugoslavia 1 Sqn
Belgium 2 Sqns
Greece 3 Sqns
Holland 3 Sqns
Czechoslovakia 4 Sqns
Norway 4 Sqns
Poland 13 Sqns
France 27 Sqns
Those 57 Squadrons came from the following Countries:
Yugoslavia 1 Sqn
Belgium 2 Sqns
Greece 3 Sqns
Holland 3 Sqns
Czechoslovakia 4 Sqns
Norway 4 Sqns
Poland 13 Sqns
France 27 Sqns
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we go OTT about being British, it seems that Britishness Day has been dropped.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Britishness Day plans 'dropped'
BBC NEWS | Politics | Britishness Day plans 'dropped'
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How about the RAF deliberately targeting civilians with incendiary carpet bombing raids on German cities during WW2? Even if you argue that it was strategically necessary, it doesn't alter the fact that it was a war-crime."
Why don't you bugger off to a nursery to suck a tit, rather than hang around on a war forum? War is hell. Dad didn't jack in his day trade as a travelling salesman to incinerate German babies. He joined the 8th Army to get the Fascists out of Europe. Perhaps he shouldn't have bothered, then you can be polite to your Jew-free, Gypsey-free masters.
Why don't you bugger off to a nursery to suck a tit, rather than hang around on a war forum? War is hell. Dad didn't jack in his day trade as a travelling salesman to incinerate German babies. He joined the 8th Army to get the Fascists out of Europe. Perhaps he shouldn't have bothered, then you can be polite to your Jew-free, Gypsey-free masters.
